CJ,
I like what you say here. I do, however, disagree with a few things you said.
I have seen many dealers in my time that can deal "seconds" and that certainly effects the outcome of the card game....they also can show players a glimpse of the cards, and even deal off the bottom. This effects the outcome much more than accidently not freezing the pool balls,
The analogy here would be if the ref didn't rack the one ball in the front or something. This is about the "rules" of dealing (racking)...there is no difference in "quality" of deal as long as the rules are satisfied. The same can not be said of the rack.
as a matter of fact you never know, it could actually help the player if the balls aren't "perfect".....it's impossible to know for sure from rack to rack....it's just "in the stars" like the "rolls" of the match for the most part.
It certainly is not impossible to know for sure from rack to rack. This is the whole point of inspecting the rack: to know. Joe Tucker I imagine would take issue with your statement here.
I think we can take it for granted that the Referees would be highly trained for the position of "official racker".
Even if the honesty of the racker isn't in question, it sure looks that way if the player studies his rack intently.....
It only looks that way to someone who is particularly defensive, and isn't concerned with the facts of the situation. It is also far more likely to come across this way to people who have not learned the specifics of the rack and how it effects the outcome of the break. (Of course it *could* be a question to the rackers honesty, but in most cases I think not. I believe strongly that the vast majority of bad racks I've received in my life were an accident.
it's fair to both players to be allowed to look OR it's fair if the players are NOT allowed to look.....it's just a matter of presentation.
Ok I agree with you here. Of course the possibility exists that one player will by chance get more favorable racks than the other, but I suppose it is fair if you have *extremely* skilled and *moral* refs.
We know how to see the "L Train" (from Joe Tucker) and depending on how anal the player is or wants to be they can take a magnifying glass to the table and spend a minute or two studying the rack before they break.......we just have to decide if this is to be allowed or not contingent on how it effects the flow and visual aspects of the game. I personally don't think it looks good, and it makes no difference to me if we're allowed to look or not.
Realistically, I think less than 10 seconds is required to decide if the rack is good or not, and what to do with it based on the gaps.
We can also allow the players to study every shot with as much time as they need or we can seek to speed up play to make it more exciting and entertaining to the viewers.
I hear you here. This is very important at this point in our sport.
I just played a tourney the other night, I never once asked for a rerack. However I did look at almost every rack. After reading this thread I tried not looking a few times. On one I made a million balls on the break, on the others it was like hitting a clump of mud. It most definitely effected the outcome of those games. Now, the only problem I have is this: in that group of people, I think my racking skills are even more above the average level than my pool skills. So is it fair that I consistently give near perfect racks, but receive horrible loose disasters for racks? What do you do in this situation, where there are not any refs to rack?
Anyway, good post.
KMRUNOUT
